The Development Control Committee met to discuss an application for the construction of two digestate lagoons at The Vineries in Green Tye. Councillors approved the application, concluding that it aligned with sustainability principles and that potential impacts could be managed through permit conditions. The committee also confirmed the minutes of the previous meeting.

Digestate Lagoons at The Vineries, Green Tye

Councillors approved planning application PL 0457/25 for the construction of two digestate lagoons at The Vineries in Green Tye, Much Hadham. The application site is within the wider landholding of Guy and Wrights, a farm which produces tomatoes on a commercial scale.

The planning application was for two additional storage lagoons to provide additional capacity to store digestate¹. The existing anaerobic digester² uses green waste to heat the greenhouses where tomatoes are grown, with surplus energy being sent to the national grid. The digestate is a residual organic material from this process, which is stored in lagoons before being spread on local agricultural fields as a fertiliser.

The planning officer, Sharon Therfel, explained that the applicant was seeking additional storage because of stricter controls from the Environment Agency (EA) on when digestate could be spread on land, limiting the spreading window to 16 weeks due to increased wet weather. She stated that the application did not propose to increase the volume of material processed or the number of HGV movements.

The proposed lagoons would be constructed using a cut and fill method, with material dug out and used to create bunds around the perimeter. A green mesh weld fence would be placed on top of the bunds for security.

Consultation Responses and Objections

Ms Therfel summarised the consultation responses, noting that East Herts Council had no objections. Much Hadham Parish Council objected, primarily due to concerns about odour and the over industrialisation of the rural location. They requested a condition to protect the adjacent public footpath.

There were 33 objections from the public, mainly concerning residential amenity, particularly odour from the development and the spreading of digestate. Other concerns included noise from electricity generation, intensification of the rural area, pollution, and increased traffic movements.

Odour Concerns and Mitigation

Odour was a key concern raised by residents. Ms Therfel told the committee that the EA regulates odour, and that the council should not duplicate their regulatory controls. She had spoken to the EA, who had received six odour complaints in the year to 2 September, all after the planning application was submitted. These complaints did not meet the threshold for investigation, and the EA could not determine if the odour was specifically from the site or from the spreading of digestate.

Ms Therfel had visited the site seven times to monitor odour, including walking the perimeter, and had only experienced odour when directly next to the lagoon within the site boundary. She was accompanied on two occasions by officers who had had their sensitivity to odour tested, and they also did not find any adverse odour.

The EA would need to amend the permit for the site, and would agree appropriate measures to control odour with the applicant. The applicant had suggested using hexaplates³, which are claimed to provide a 95% reduction in odour, but this would be determined through the permit process.

Councillor Helen Campbell, Deputy Executive Member for Highways, noted that she had not detected any odour until she was well within the site and right next to the existing lagoon.

Councillor Saul Jacob asked about the population density within a square mile of the site, to contextualise the 33 objections received. Ms Therfel responded that the council did not have that information, and that it was not an appropriate statistical extrapolation to make.

Vehicle Movements and Road Access

Councillor Chris Lloyd, Vice-Chairman of the Health Scrutiny Committee, raised concerns about the width of the roads, but Ms Therfel confirmed that the application did not seek to change the number of vehicle movements. She clarified that there would be construction vehicles during the building of the lagoons, but this would be a low level.

Ms Therfel also mentioned a separate application to East Herts Council for an agricultural road from the main public highway to the site, which had been rejected due to harmful visual landscape impact, further urbanisation of a rural location, and obstruction of long-range views.

Applicant's Perspective

Nick Gerrard, agent for the applicant Guy and Wright, thanked the officers for their thorough consideration of the application. He explained that the application was necessary to address operational issues arising from more robust application of regulatory guidance and controls by the EA, and changing weather patterns and cropping strategies. He emphasised that the application was solely for the improvement in storage infrastructure and would not change the processing capacity of the digesters.

Mr Gerrard stated that the EA is responsible for ensuring appropriate control measures are in place and for investigating any odour complaints. He added that prior to the application, there were no recorded odour complaints to the EA for over two years.

Robert Jones, Operations Director at Guy and Wright, explained that the lagoons are built with an HDPE landfill liner and a leak detection system, which is monitored daily. He stated that every weld on the liner is recorded, and the EA signs off the design and construction before operation commences.

Councillor Campbell asked about the likelihood of the second lagoon being constructed. Mr Jones responded that it was unlikely to be needed at the current time, but may be required if local farmers decide not to grow oilseed rape in the autumn.

Decision

Councillor Alexander Curtis proposed that the committee adopt the recommendation to approve the application, with the five conditions detailed in the report. He argued that the site was a local success story, the application was for no increase in traffic or waste, and there were limited objections. Councillor Vishal Patel seconded the motion.

Other councillors spoke in favour of the application, emphasising its positive environmental impact, the lack of highways objections, and the fact that the application was not seeking to expand the site.

The committee voted unanimously in favour of approving the planning application.

Confirmation of Minutes

The committee approved the minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2025 01. Minutes of 26 February 2025.pdf.